














^ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. , 




i 

n 


! 1 !<;■'? 


1 


UNITED STATES OF AMEEICA. 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 



INFANT BAPTISM 



im A I^UT-SHELL. 






THIRD EDITION; REVISED AND ENLARGED. 






ST. LOUIS^ MO.: 

Perrin & Smith, Book and Job Printers, 210 Olive Street. 
1880. 

r 



RY 









Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1880, by E. B. 
Crisman, D. D., in the Office of Librarian of Congress, at Wash- 
ington, D. C. 



CONTENT S. 



CHAPTER I. 

Covenant Relation of Infants to the Church. 

CHAPTER II. 

New Testament Argument. 

CHAPTER III. 

Testimony of the Fathers. 

CHAPTER IV. 

Some Other Arp-uments. 

^ m 

CHAPTER V. 

Some Objections Answered. 

CHAPTER VI. 

The Argaiment Condensed. 

9 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



CHAPTEE I. 

COVENANT RELATION OF INFANTS TO THE 
CHURCH. 

The subject of the relation of the chil- 
dren of Christian parents to the Church, 
and of their rights as secured by that re- 
latioUj is one which has perplexed many 
good people. The differences of views 
on this subject have caused unfoiiiunate 
strifes, which bring the cause of our com- 
mon Christianity into more or less dis- 
repute with the outside world. 

In entering upon the discussion of this 
subject, I make the following remarks : 

1. I neither desire nor expect to con- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



vince an opponent by abusing or ridiculing 
his views. A timid man may be moved 
by ridicule, and a resentful one by abuse, 
but an intelligent one will never be con- 
vinced by either. 

2. God has made men with as great 
variety of minds as he has of features, 
and it must not be expected that all men 
will think alike on any subject. 

3. The great subject of the salvation 
of sinners is of such absorbing importance 
that it would seem that it alone should 
occupy the attention of the Christian min- 
ister. But the apostolic injunction is, to 
be ready to give a reason for the faith 
which is in us, and self-defense is the first 
great law of nature. Therefore, we are 
ready and willing to set forth plainly the 
reasons for our views and practices, al- 
ways observing that dignified and Heaven- 
approved charity, which embraces all the 
lovers of our Lord Jesus Christ. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



The occasional necessity for this course 
will appear from the f ollo^\dng incident in 
my own history : In the year 1857, at a 
camp-meeting in Western Texas, I was 
requested to preach on the subject of In- 
fant Baptism, and did so on Saturday 
afternoon, and on the next day when 
an opportmiity was given a number of 
parents came forward and dedicated their 
children to God — one presentmg as many 
as five children, and another four, show- 
ing that they had previously neglected 
this duty. One of these parents informed 
me that he had been a member of the 
Cumberland Presbyterian Church for 
twelve years, and while he had in that 
time repeatedly heard the practice of In- 
fant Baptism abused and ridiculed, he 
had never before heard any man de- 
fend it, and had consequently neglected 
it m his own family up to that time. 

After the above mtroduction, I proceed 



8 INT ANT BAPTISM. 



to consider the following proposition: 
That the children of parents who 

ARE MEMBERS OF THE ChURCH HAVE AL- 
WAYS HELD SUCH COVENANT RELATION 

TO THE Church as entitled them to 

RECEIVE THE ORDINANCE WHICH WAS 
AND IS A SEAL OF THAT COVENANT. 

In arguing this proposition I will men- 
tion: 

1. That the Church under the I^ew 
Testament dispensation and the Chm^ch 
under the Old Testament dispensation are 
not separate organizations, but are identi- 
cal — one Church. 'Not one Church for 
the old dispensation, which was done away 
with, and another Church established for 
the new dispensation, as some do er- 
roneously argue; but one body, perpet- 
ual, never destroyed nor disorganized, 
extenduig from the earliest age of promise 
and covenant to the last work of grace on 
earth. Thus, it is that great building 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



erected ^^on the foundation of the apostles 
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being 
the chief corner-stone m whom all the 
building fitly framed together groweth to 
an holy temple in the Lord." From this 
Scripture it is evident that it is not one 
building and foundation for the prophets 
or ancient times and another for the apos- 
tles or modem times; but one and the 
same building and foundation for both. 

Also read the language of our Savior, 
Matthew xxi. 33-43, where the great and 
only change which took place in the 
Church, in passing from the old to the new 
dispensation, is forcibly represented by 
the parable of the vineyard which was let 
out to husbandmen who proved unfaithful, 
and the question is asked, What will the 
master do in the case? Would he destroy 
the vhieyard and make a new one? By 
no means. But ^^he wdll miserably de- 
stroy those wicked men, and will let out 



10 IKFA:srT BAPTIS3I. 



his vineyard unto other husbandmen.'' 
Here the simihtude is complete. The 
Church at the first ^ was ^4et out" to the 
Jews. They proved unfaithful and the 
Lord did not, therefore , destroy the 
Church and make a new one — but simply 
took it from the Jews and gave it to the 
Gentiles. ^^The kingdom of God shall 
be taken from you" (Jews) ^^and given 
to a nation bringmg forth the fruits there- 
of." l^othhig can teach more plainly 
that the Church is continued from the old 
dispensation to the new. ]!!^ot a new one 
built, but the old one more fully estab- 
lished and glorified. The same truth is 
also taught by our Savior, John x. 16. 

In the epistle to the Romans the apostle 
Paul also bears testimony to the same truth 
under the similitude of the ^^ olive tree" — 
the natural branches of which — the Jews 
— were broken off because of unbelief, 
and the Gentiles, who ^^were wild by 



INFANT BAPTISM. 11 



nature, were grafted, contrary to nature, 
into a good olive tree." ISTot that the 
olive tree — the Church — was destroyed; 
that was preserved; but the Jews, to 
whom it was first given, were cast off, 
and the Gentiles grafted in — not made 
into a new or different Church, but put 
into the very same out of which the Jews 
had been cast. 

Thus, according to Christ and St. Paul, 
the Church is identically the same hody 
now that it was in the days of old. And 
he who is not con^dnced by such au- 
thority, ^Svould not beheve though one 
should rise from the dead." 

2. That the Church has always had, 
and now has, two ordhiances, typifying 
the two great and essential facts m the 
history of redemption, viz : the suffermgs 
of Christ and the new birth. Without 
either one of these two facts no man is 
saved. Wherever both exist, the man is 



12 INFANT BAPTISM. 



saved whatever may be the other circum- 
stances in special cases. Hence these are 
the essential facts m redemption, and the 
only essential facts. They are the two 
facts symbolized by ordinances, and the 
only facts thus symbolized and dignified. 
"No other facts can compare with them in 
importance, and hence none are dignified 
with them by representation in the ordi- 
nances. The object of the ordinances 
has always been to keep these two essen- 
tial facts prominently before the world. 

In the Church at the present day, the 
Lord's supper most forcibly typifies the 
sufferings of Christ for human redemp- 
tion, especially as seen in his broken body 
and shed blood ; and baptism, using the 
purifying element, water, typifies the 
washing of regeneration, the cleansing of 
the soul from sin by the blood of Jesus 
Christ, the new birth. 

Of course, then, we cannot admit as 



INFANT BAPTISM. 13 



true 5 what our Baptist brethren claim, 
i. e. : that baptism represents the death, 
burial and resurrection of Christ. This 
we cannot admit for a number of reasons, 
the one here presented being itself a con- 
vuicmg one : We would by this view have 
both the ordinances of the Church repre- 
senting Christ's sufferings and the other 
equally essential fact in redemption, the 
new birth, not represented at all m the or- 
dinances. This argument is overwhelm- 
ing when it is considered : 

First. That, to secure redemprtion, 
which is the object of grace in all its pro- 
visions, the new birth is equally as essen- 
tial as the atonement, and has equal 
claims to representation by ordinances. 

Second. That one ordinance is enough 
to represent one thing, and hence that 
two to represent the same thhig would be 
a work of superfluity in ordinances. 

Third. That there can be no sufficient 



14 IXFANT BAPTISM. 



reason assigned for typifying one of the 
two essential facts by two ordinances and 
leaving the other mthout a type. 

"What the Lord's supper and baptism 
accomphsh now y/as done anciently by 
the passover and circumcision. The office 
performed in the tv/o cases is identically 
the same. The sacrifices pointed forward 
by type to the same vicarious sacrifice 
back to which the mind is now directed 
by the solemn scene of the supper. The 
one assisted the prospective faith of the 
ancient^ the other assists the retrospective 
faith of the modern Christian. What 
baptism now accomplishes by typifying 
the washing of regeneration , or the 
cleansing the soul from sin, was done 
by the sign of circumcision by typifyuig 
that ^^circumcision which is in the spirit, 
and not in the letter'' — the circumcision 
of the heart being the washing of regen- 
eration. 



INFA^^ BAPTISM. 15 



3. That I do not admit as true, what 
is usually understood by the expression, 
^ ^Baptism has taken the place of circum- 
cision." As though baptism is one ordi- 
nance and circumcision another. 

Baptism, as an orduiance, has not taken 
the place of circumcision, as an ordinance. 
Circumcision and baptism are different 
forms of the same ordinance — the ordi- 
nance havuig identically the same signi- 
fication and use under both forms. The 
ordinance of baptism of the new dispen- 
sation is^ — not has taken the place of, — 
the orduiance of circumcision of the old 
dispensation. The cii^cumcision of the 
old ^5, — not has given place to, — the bap- 
tism of the new. So likewise in signifi- 
cation and use the Lord's supper of the 
new is the passover of the old dispensa- 
tion, and vice versa o 

Justin Martyi% who had the personal 
instructions of those who had seen and 



16 INFANT BAPTISM. 



heard the apostles to aid him in the inter- 
pretation of their writings , and the ancient 
fathers of the Church, called baptism 
' ' Christian Circumcision . ' ' "We quote 
one sentence of Martyr, writing only 
forty years after the apostolic age : ^'We 
are circumcised by baptism — by Christ- s 
circumcision.'' And one paragraph of 
Chrysostom, writing two hundred and 
eighty years after the apostolic age : ^ ^Our 
circumcision — I mean the grace of bap- 
tism — gives cure without pain, and has no 
determinate time as that had (the eighth 
day) 5 but it is lawful to one at the begm- 
ning of life (first day of his birth) , or in 
the middle of it, or in old age, to receive 
this circumcision, made without hands.'' 
He also enumerates the benefits of bap- 
tism, and adds, ^'For this cause we bap- 
tize infants also, that they be not defiled 
by sin." 

Rev. Dr. John Guthrie, recently of 



INFANT BAPTISM. 17 



Glasgow, Scotland, whose very superior 
little book, ^^The Psedobaptist Guide/' I 
have read since the previous edition of 
this work was issued, wiites : ^^I under- 
stand baptism to be a sign of the purify- 
ing work of God the Spirit, just as the 
sister ordinance is a sign of the atoning 
wcrk of God the Son. The other mean- 
ings imported into it by Baptists — ground- 
ed on their misinterpretation of the phrase, 
^buried with Christ in baptism' — we utter- 
ly reject, as based on error, and as creating 
boundless confusion. Baptism is a sign 
OF THE Spirit's work, as the Lord's 
SUPPER IS OF Christ's work: here is a 
complete and symmetrical account of the 
two emblematical ordinances of Christian- 
ity, embracing between them the two 
most vital and central doctrines of re- 
demption. That baptism does signify the 
outpoured mfluences of the Holy Spirit I 
need not stop to prove ; for this Baptists 



18 INFANT BAPTISM. 



admit (though they confuse it with other 
additions.) In reference to infants, no 
less than to adults, baptism is a sign of 
the Spirit's work, which is held by us to 
embrace, in its provision and scope, in- 
fants as well as adults, and to have spe- 
cial scope and signilicance in Christian 
households.'' 

Thus the two ordinances which stood 
as types of the two great facts in the his- 
tory and work of redemption, have never 
been changed^ — never abrogated— never 
displaced. Like the Church itself, they 
are identically the same now that they 
have always been. Like the Churchy and 
for reasons which might be assigned, they 
have midergone changes in form, — hat in 
form only^ — in signification and use they 
are michanged and unabrogated, bemg 
the same in unchangeable substance and 
type that they have ever been. 

4:, That, whatever God, originally es- 



INFAKT BAPTISM. 19 



tablished as law and practice in the 
Church must continue to be law and prac- 
tice until annulled by Hjm. Whoever 
denies the truth of this proposition is 
diiven immediately into the bosom of the 
Koman Catholic Church, where the pope 
is held to be the vice-gerent of God 
and Christ m the government of the 
Church and may change its regulations 
at will. 

It then remains for us to prove, 
5. That God in founding the Church 
originally enacted that the children of 
covenanting^ or believing ^ parents should 
he admitted^ in the churchy to the same 
covenant relation as the 2)ctre7its enjoyed. 
For the first full and distinct develop- 
ment of a church organization we must 
refer to the time of Abraham. Him Grod 
separated from the heathen; with him 
entered into a covenant, appointing cir- 
cumcision to be a sign and seal of that 



20 INPANT BAPTISM. 



covenant. In this covenant he promised 
to be a God to him and to his seed for- 
ever. 

Eead Gen. xvii. 7 : ^^And I will estab- 
lish my covenant between me and thee 
and thy seed after thee in their gener- 
ations , for an everlastmg covenant , to be 
a God unto thee and to thy seed after 
thee.'' 

ISTotice also in the above that the cove- 
nant then established was an everlasting 
covenant, not to end with a generation 
nor with a dispensation : as also in the 
following : 

I. Chron. xvi. 15-17: ^^Be ye mindful 
always of his covenant ; the word which 
he commanded to a thousand generations^ 
even of the covenant which he made with 
Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; 
and hath confirmed the same to Jacob 
for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting 
covenant.'' 



r^ANT BAPTISM. 21 



Here it is affirmed that the Abrahamie 
covenant is to contmue for "a, thousand 
generations^'^ yea, forever. And of this 
covenant circumcision was the sign or 
token as seen m the f ollowuig : 

Gen. xvii. 11 : '^And ye shall circum- 
cise the flesh of your foreskin; and it 
shall be a token of the covenant betwixt 
me and you.'' 

And also a seal : Eom. iv. 11 : ^^And 
he received the sign of cii^cumcision, a 
seal of the righteousness of the faith 
which he had, yet being uncircumcised." 

Circumcision being the sign or token 
of the covenant, of course all who were 
admitted to circumcision, were mcluded 
in the covenant. Then we are ready to 
read the following : Gen. xvii. 12-13 : 
^^And he that is eight days old shall be 
circumcised among you, every man child 
in your generations, he that is bom in the 
house, or bought with money of any 



22 INFANT BAPTISM . 



stranger, which is not of thy seed. He 
that is born in thy honse, and he that is 
bought with thy money, must needs be 
circumcised; and my covenant shall be 
in your flesh for an everlasting cove- 
nant.'' 

And, Exod. xii. 43-44: ^^And the 
Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, this 
is the ordinance of the passover : There 
shall no stranger eat thereof : but every 
man's servant that is bought for money, 
when thou hast circumcised him, then 
shall he eat thereof. ' ' And verses 48 and 
49 : ^^And when a stranger shall sojourn 
with thee, and will keep the passover to 
the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, 
and then let him come near and keep it ; 
and he shall be as one that is born in the 
land : for no uncircumcised person shall 
eat thereof. One law shall be to him that 
is home-born, and unto the stranger that 
sojourneth among you." 



infa:nt baptism. 23 



By carefully considering all the above 
quoted scriptures the following proposi- 
tions will appear mcontrovertible : 

1st. That God in admittmg the head 
of a household 5 whether Jew or Gentile, 
to the covenant^ did not divide families 
by covenanting with the parents and leav- 
ing out the childi^en. 

2nd. That circumcision did not bring 
its subject into spiritual relation with God, 
but only into covenant relation, it being 
only an outward sign of the circumcision 
of the heart in the spirit. Rom. ii. 28, 29. 

3d. The visible relation of the Jews 
to the visible Church was recognized by 
visible circumcision. 

4th. It was made the imperative duty 
of the Jews in the visible Church to cir- 
cumcise their male children at eight days 
old and upwards. 

5th. It was allowed to a stranger — a 



24: INFAISJ^T BAPTISM. 



Gentile — to live among the Jews without 
circumcision. 

6th. But if the Gentile should wish 
to enjoy the privileges of the visible 
Church he ^^must needs be circumcised.'' 

7th. It was required of the Jews — or 
members of the Church — in admitting a 
Gentile, that they should not only require 
him to submit to circumcision himself, but 
that he should also circumcise ^^all his 
males.'' 

And hence, 

8tli. That in the original constitution 
of the Churchy God ordained that every 
covenant relation^ every covenant promise 
and every covenant requirement should 
apply to and include the infants as fully 
as the parents. 

We are now ready for remark, 

6. That this covenant relation, which 
secures the title of infants to the visible 
ordinance which is its sign and seal, must 



INFANT BAPTISM. 25 



endure as long as the covenant itself shall 
endure. The durability of the coyenant 
wherever mentioned , is declared to be 
^^everlasting." Only one hmit is given 
for the contmuance of the relation between 
God and believing parents and then* chil- 
dren, namely J a ^ ^thousand genera- 
tions,'' which, doubtless, is an expression 
to denote its endless perpetuity ; but if 
taken literally, it secures the title of in- 
fants to the sealing ordinance for a period 
of at least thirty thousand years, less than 
one-fifth of which has as yet transpired. 

T. That these appointments and re- 
quirements of what Stephen called in ~New 
Testament times, ^^the Church in the 
wilderness," to which Moses belonged, 
were never annulled and can never be 
changed : 

1st. TJie law did not annul them: 
Gal. iii. 17: ^^And this I say, that the 
covenant, that was confirmed 'before of 



26 ESTFANT BAPTISM. 



God in Christ, the law, which was four 
hundred and thirty years after'' — at 
Mount Sinai — ^ ^cannot disannul, that it 
should make the promise of none effect." 

2nd. The Gospel did not annul them: 
But rather confirmed them : Acts ii. 39 : 
^Tor the promise is unto you, and to your 
children." Acts. iii. 25: ^^Ye are the 
children of the prophets, and of the cove- 
nant which God made with our fathers." 
Mark x. 14 : ^ ^Suffer the little children to 
come unto me, and forbid them not : for 
of such is the kingdom of God." The 
^ ^kingdom of God" — in Matthew the 
^ ^kingdom of heaven" — meaning here, as 
often elsewhere, the Church. 

Here we quote the learned and perti- 
nent remarks of Dean Alford in his 
^ ' Greek Testament. ' ' In considering the 
last quoted and the succeeding verse of 
Scripture, he says : ^^We can hardly read 
our Lord's solemn saying, without seeing 



11^^ ANT BAPTISM. 27 



that it reaches further than the mere then 
present occasion. It might one day be- 
come a question whether the new Chiis- 
tian covenant of repentance and faith 
could take in the unconscious infant, as the 
old covenant did : — whether when Jesus 
was no longer on earth, little cliildren 
might be brought to him, dedicated to his 
service, and made partakers of his bless- 
ing? ^aj, m the pride of the human 
intellect, tliis question was sure one day 
to be raised ; and our Lord furnishes the 
Church, by anticipation, with an answer 
to it for all ages. 'Not only may the little 
infants be brought to hhn, but m order 
for us, who are mature, to come to him, 
we must cast away all that wherein our 
maturity has caused us to differ from them, 
and BECOME like them. N^ot only is in- 
fant baptism justified^ but it is the nor- 
mal pattern of all baptism : none can 
enter God's kingdom except as an infant. 



28 INFANT BAPTISM. 



In adult baptism, the exceptional case^ we 
strive to secure that state of simphcity 
and childhkeness, which in the mfant we 
have ready and undoubted to our hands.'' 

3rd. God himself would not change 
the covenant. Once established it par- 
takes of the nature of a contract, which 
is necessarily perpetual mitil both parties 
agree to cancel or change it. God hav- 
ing made the covenant between himself 
and the Church, guaranteeing certain 
privileges and blessmgs to themselves and 
to their children, as previously shown, 
that covenant must remain perpetual until 
such time as both parties agree to annul 
it. 

In conclusion: 

1st. Circumcision was both m the let^ 
ter and spirit ; i. e. : there was a literal 
circumcision and a spiritual circumcision. 
The same ordinance, in its changed form, 
baptism, is also both in the letter and 



INFANT BAPTISM. 29 



spirit, i. e. : water baptism and the bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost. This hteral or- 
dhiance, both mider its ancient and modern 
forms, serves a threefold purpose in the 
Church : 1st. It typifies the mward grace 
of spiritual cleansmg. 2nd. It seals the 
admission to the covenant relation m the 
Church. 3rd. It binds its subjects to an 
observance of the whole law — Gal. v. 3. 
Whoever is once put in possession of the 
title to this sealuig ordinance by the 
proper authority, enjoys a perpetual right 
to it. God adopted the infants of cove- 
nanting parents into the covenant rela- 
tion, and gave them title to the sealing 
ordinance, and their claim to it is there- 
fore perpetual. 

2nd. When God has made it the duty 
of parents to seal their children in this 
covenant relation with him, they may not 
decline or neglect unless they can show 
that God has released them from the per- 



30 INFANT BAPTISM. 



formance. God has never changed his 
appointments on this subject. It is there- 
fore the imperative duty of all Christian 
parents to dedicate their children to God 
in the sealing ordinance of his own ap- 
pointment. 

3d. If the views set forth in this ar- 
gument are not correct, and infant mem- 
bership is not to be recognized, then I 
will ask any opponent to show where and 
when Christ became a member of the 
Church? If the views of our opponents 
on this subject be correct, then Christ 
must have lived and died out of the 
Church. 

4th. The views and practice of Anti- 
paedo-Baptists on this important subject 
are unnatural and opposed to all ordinary 
analogies. When a shepherd gathers his 
flocks into the fold to protect them from 
ravenous wolves, he does not gather in 
the grown sheep and leave the lambs 



INPAISTT BAPTISM. 31 



without. "Why should the great spiritual 
Shepherd pursue a different course in 
gathering his spiritual sheep mto the spir-^ 
itual fold? When the herdsman turns 
out his cattle m Spring and Summer to 
graze upon the hill sides and valleys, 
he is careful that the yomig shall first be 
marked and branded with the same marks 
and brands as the parent cattle bear. But 
our Baptist brethren would have us be 
less careful of our children in spiritual 
things, than we are of our lambs, pigs 
and calves in natural things. 

We quote the f ollowuig from a private 
letter recently received from a friend: 
^ '^Parents are accountable for their chil- 
dren until a certain age. This imposes a 
fearful responsibility upon them. They 
must have every spiritual and ecclesiasti- 
cal advantage in order to meet this re- 
sponsibility. To do so the child ought to 
be in the Church with them — where they 



32 INPANT BAPTISM. 



are — not somewhere else. Admit the 
parent, shut the door agamst the child, 
and place a partition wall between them — 
shut the ewe up in the sheep-fold and 
place the lamb outside and can she suckle 
it?'' 

The sign and seal of the covenant 
marked out infants at eight days old, as 
embraced within it — did not embrace them 
in it at eight days old, but marked or 
sealed the fact that they were embraced 
in it from birth. Circumcision did not 
give children title to membership in the 
Church, but sealed the fact that they 
were members . And the proof that chil- 
dren were once members of the Church 
is proof sufficient that they are still mem- 
bers of it. 

Falling back, therefore, on our original 
proposition as already demonstrated, that 
the Church of God is one and the same in 
its essential nature in every age, we are 



riO'AKT BAPTISM^ 33 



entitled to affirm that infants once com- 
petent members of it^ are competent mem- 
bers stilL And hence it follows that the 
children of parents who have received 
baptism — which is the formal emdence 
of raemhershi'p — are to be baptized, and 
grow up within the pale of the Church, in 
IN^ew Testament times, as in Old Testa- 
ment times. 

And they who object to infant member- 
ship on the ground of propriety and com- 
mon sense, must settle the quarrel with 
God, who originated the charter of the 
Church* 

And here WB must be allowed to ex- 
press an idea suggested by the quotation 
previously given from Dean Alf ord : In- 
fant membership is the patteek of all 

MEMBERSHIP. It is FORMAL CHURCH- 
MEMBERSHIP. When we, who are ma- 
ture, would become members, we must 
lay aside all which distinguishes us from 



84 INFANT BAPTISM. 



the little child — ^'be converted and be- 
come as little children;'' and except we 
become as httle children ^ Ve cannot enter 
the kingdom of God.''* 

^^Theer children, also, shall be as 

AFOKETIME."— Jer, XXX. 20. 



*For the relation of baptized children to the Church, 
see close of second chapter. 



IKFANT BAPTISM. 35 



CHAPTER II. 

NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT. 

In the first chapter it was shown that it 
was the practice of the Church under the 
old dispensation to consider and treat the 
children of believing parents as being in 
the same covenant relation to God as their 
parents, and to submit them to the ordi- 
nance which was the formal evidence of 
this relation. 

We now proceed to offer some of the 
reasons which prove the following prop- 
osition: 

That the doctrine and practice 
OF THE Church on this subject are 
the same under the new dispensa- 
tion AS UNDER THE OLD. 



36 INFAm^ BAPTISM. 



1. There can be no reason assigned 
why there should be a difference. 

Had it not been best for the spiritual 
welfare of parents and children, God 
would neyer have adopted it in the 
charter of the Church. And if it was 
for spiritual advantage in one age, there 
can be no reason why it is not for spirit- 
ual advantage in another and in every 
age. Human nature, human sin, and 
God's plan for human redemption are al-^ 
ways and everywhere the same. What 
God adopts foj* spiritual benefit at one 
time, will alwa^ys redound to spiritual 
benefit. If in the divine estimation, it was 
ever expedient,;^ right and good that chil- 
dren should be admitted into covenant re- 
lation with him in the Churchy and that 
they should be entitted to the ordinance 
which testifies and seals their title, which 
likely none will deny, then we may suc- 
cessfully challenge any party to show 



LNFAISTT BAPTISM. 37 

why the same things are not always expe- 
dient, right and good, ' -'• 

This wholesome principle in the origi- 
nal charter of the Churfifi'hiust be there- 
fore maintamed as uncha^hged, until its 
abrogation can be proven by an ex- 
press prohibition, or by ah'incompati- 
bihty, no less distinct, between the nature 
of the ordinance and their coiidition as 
infants. But no such prohibiti'6i¥^nd no 
such incompatibility exist; and we are fully 
warranted in saymg that the "ancient coy- 
renant relation of infants and its neces- 
sary consequence, theh^ baptism, still exist, 
r 2. ]Sro Jews, in ]!!^ew Testament times, 
ever made complaint of being' depriyed of 
any yalued priyilege which they had pre- 
yiously enjoyed. There were mMy Jew- 
ish conyertS* tand many Jews ^^^re added to 
the Church in the days of Christ arid of the 
aj;iostles. It had been their custom pre- 
oFiously to consider and treat their children 



38 INFANT BAPTISM. 



as members of the Cluirch, and to admin- 
ister to them the sealing ordinance ac- 
cordingly, and if\ on their introduction 
into the Christian Churchy they found 
themselves deprived of these valued privi- 
leges, by a radical change in the regula- 
tions, we would naturally look for them 
to lay in their complaints. ''It is, there- 
fore, strong corroborative proof of the 
practice of the early Christians, that while 
there were multitudes who were converts 
from the Jewish faith, by whom the ad- 
mission of their children into the Church 
by the seal of the covenant, was regarded 
as a privilege of the greatest importance^ 
and while controversies about circumcision 
agitated the Church, and awakened the 
most intense and prejudiced feelings, there 
is not a single instance recorded, neither 
in scripture nor history, of any Jewish 
convert making any complaint or difficulty 
because deprived of this privilege.'' The 



INFANT BAPTISM. 39 



plain presumption is that they were not 
thus deprived, but that they found the 
practice of the Church in this particular 
to be in apostolic times what God had 
made it for them in prophetic times. 

3. The apostle Paul recognizes chil- 
dren as members of the Church in his 
epistles to the Ephesians and CoUossians. 

The epistle to the Ephesians begins: 
^'To the saints which are atEphesus, and 
to the faithful in Christ Jesus." That to 
the CoUossians begins : ^ ^To the saints and 
faithful brethren in Christ which are at 
Collosse.'' Then the apostle proceeds to 
address these saints and faithful ones, 
by the various relations of husbands and 
wives 5 masters and servants, parents and 
cliildren. As: ^^ Children, obey your 
parents in the Lord. " — Eph. vi. 1 . And, 
^^ Children, obey your parents in all 
things." — Col. iii. 20. Thus parents, 
servants and cMldreyi are separately ad» 



4:0 INFANT BAPTISM. 



dressed as being included in the ^ ^saints 
and faithful in Christ.'^ 'Now if those 
paremtajwene members of the Church, and 
ithe apostle ^o addressed them, were not 
the children also? J^^ote, the apostle here 
classifies the ^(^^/^fe and faithful who be- 
Jong to the Church, and mentions c/?iZ- 
,df^^-,amQj% :them, iieYier making any dis- 
tinctiom in "their Church relations. He 
iwrites to the membersiof the Church, and 
among themnheL findivjchildren, and ad- 
.&esses them ^s such. ; r;By what authority^ 
then, can any oiie say that the husbands,. 
(?sn^es)p mastet^^^ sertants and parents y 
whom Paul classifies as such, were Church 
members^ i but that th^^eMldren were not? 
Respecting the^ s.g'e^ of cthose here ad- 
dressed by thoffepdstle as children, it is 
only necessary! to refers to tJie fact that he 
instructs the parents to '^^bring them up 
in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lordj'/ showing that they wei^e children 



INFANT baptism:. ^1 



of a very tender age — subjects of disci- 
pline Jalid mental instruction. That they 
were not of sufficient age to be classed as 
adults is also manifest from the fact that 
they are amonished to obey their parents 
in all things. 

•Especially, let the language be noted, 
^. ' Childi-en , obey your parents in the 
Lovdy How could they obey 'Hn the 
Z^ord^^ if they themselves were not in the 
Lord f This expression^ in every instance, 
marks incorporation into the Christian 
body. For example, when St. Paul dis- 
tinguishes those of the family of N^arcis- 
eus who were Christians ^ his languageriig 
^.^hich are in the Liord^^^ Philemon 
^'y^^^ in the Lord. ^^ A fellow Christian 
with his master, Onesimus was 'Hn the 
Lordy So also was Amplias, Paul'^ 
"heloved in the Lord^ And so also 
were the children addressed in the epis- 
tles to the Ephesians andCollossianSj ^'ii^ 



42 INFAiSTT BAPTISM. 



the Lordy The expression means incor- 
poration into the Chiistian body — Church 
membership — every where else. Will any 
one say that it does not mean the same 
when applied to children? 

Thus we arrive at the conclusion that 
St. Paul understood that children were to 
be regarded and treated as members of 
the Church. 

4. The principle of representation found 
m the Old Testament, in the case of par- 
ent and child 5 is not cancelled, but con- 
tinued in the ISTew, and must he held as a 
permanent principle. One passage of 
scriptm^e announces it: ^^For the unbe- 
lieving husband is sanctified by the wife, 
and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by 
the husband : else were your children un- 
clean ; but now are they holy." — I Cor. 
vii. 14. 

Here it is palpable that the apostle as- 
signs a peculiar privilege to the children 



INFANT BAPTISM. 43 



of believers, on the principle of represen- 
tation, the rule leaning to the side of 
mercy in the case where only one parent 
is a believer. The child is clean or holy 
because the parent is holy : or, in accord- 
ance with previous ecclesiastical practice, 
the child is entitled to Church member- 
ship and the sealing ordinance because the 
parent is. This much is certain, that in 
the mind of the apostle, the child of a 
believer sustains some relation, or is en- 
titled to some privilege which does not 
belong to the child of an unbeliever. Let 
it be in man's estimation, unreasonable or 
reasonable, foolish or wise, it is true^ and 
we cannot gainsay it. 

The word sanctify means to consecrate 
and regard as sacred. Any child, the 
circumstances of whose birth secured it a 
place within the theocracy or common- 
wealth of Israel, was said to be lioly^ ac- 
cording to the constant usage of scrip- 



44 INFANT BAPTISM. 



ture. For this reason Paul argues in the' 
eleventh chapter of Romans, that all th'fe 
children of Abraham were lioly. The 
child of a Jewish parent was entitled to 
circumcision because it was lioly in an' 
ecclesiastical sense ; not in a literal sense ; 
it was a child of the Church. It was not 
holy because it was circumcised, but gw^ 
cumcised because it was holy- — or cohse-' 
crated to God and regarded as sacred. 
' The child of a Jew was treated as a 
Jew, and Paul seems to take it for grant- 
ed as universally admitted that the child 
of a Christian is to be treated as a Chris- 
tian, and hence does not stop to argue 
that, but proceeds at once to consider the 
question as to what is to be done in case 
only one parent is a Christian — and de- 
cides the question on the side of ^ mercy 
by -pronouncing the child, one of whose 
parents is "l)elieving^^'^ to be holy. 
> The Jewish child when holy — regarded 



INFANT BAPTISM. 45. 



88 sacred — was circumcised as a^ testimo- 
ny and seal of that fact. The Christian 
child when lioly — regarded -as sacred by 
virtue of having a believing parent— is 
baptized as a testimony and seal of 
that fact. It is not holy because it is 
baptized ; but it is baptized because it is 
holy. 

Thus we are certainly warranted by 
scripture in concluding that the principle 
On which baptism is to be administered 
now is identical -with the principle on 
which circumcision was administered be- 
fore — that the principle , on which the 
sealing ordinance in the Church has been 
administered, has been the same under 
both dispensations 5 and that it has been 
applied to infants, one or both of whose 
parents have themselves received or do 
receive that ordinance. 

If the interpretation which we have 
here given of the passage of scripture 



46 IKTAKT BAPTISM. 



quoted be not the correct one,, allow us to 
ask the one who pronounces it incorrect, 
what the apostle meant by this language? 
Under any other view than the one we 
have taken of it, it seems unmeaning. A 
Jew hearing it would have understood it at 
once. He knew that the term ^^undearC^ 
meant unfitness for admission to Church 
privileges, and the term "holy^'^ just the 
opposite. Immediately he would have 
caught the idea just as we have presented 
it, as that is in accordance with the pre- 
vious practice of the Church, with which 
he was familiar. 

5. The total silence of scripture in ref- 
erence to any change in regard to this 
principle of representation is, itself, con- 
clusive evidence that no change was made, 
and of the practice of the early Chris- 
tians. 

The principle of infant membership and 
baptism being once established as the doc- 



INFAIsTT BAPTISM. 47 



trine of the Church, and its undisturbed 
practice for many centuries it follows that 
such is the perpetual doctrine and prac- 
tice of the Church, as long as the Great 
Law-Giver is silent as to any change. 
When any political principle is once incor- 
porated into the constitution of a country, 
it must remain in force until the constitu- 
tion is changed by proper authority. 
Any feature in the statute laws of a State 
must continue m binding force until re- 
pealed by competent power. Silence 
could never change a constitution nor 
repeal a statute; but is conclusive evi- 
dence of no change. 

It is, therefore, not only improbable 
that God would make an important 
change in the constitution and statutes of 
the Church, and say nothing about it, but 
such is impossible. His silence would be 
the warrant that no change was made. 
Therefore, we repeat, the total silence of 



48 INFANT BAPTISM. 



scripture, in reference to any change on 
this subject, warrants us in maintaining 
that what was the constant duty and prac- 
tice of the Church for many centuries 
after its organization, is still the duty, 
and should be the practice of the Church 
always and everywhere. 

It is said that Christ gave no command 
to baptize infants. "We reply that no such 
command was needed. The command to 
admit children into the covenant and to 
administer to them the sealhig ordinance, 
once given, needs not to be repeated, but 
must be in force, without any additional 
command. 

We may be allowed to remark here 
that while Christ made many changes in 
the circumstances of the Church, and dis- 
tinctly announced them, it would be pass- 
ing strange for Him to make a change in 
the very charter principles and make no 
mention of it whatever. Such a suppo- 



INFAKT BAPTISM. 49 



sition is preposterous. Especially so, 
when it is considered, as shown in Chapter 
1, that the apostles understood that the 
previous practice of the Church in admit- 
ting mfants was to be continued. 
' The argument in the last five para- 
graphs is intended to corroborate histori- 
cally the principle announced in Chapter 1 
that the covenant once made, partakes of 
the nature of a contract, and even God 
himself cannot annul it, without doing 
violence to the immutability of his own 
promise and to the rights of the creatm^e, 
the other contracting party. 

6. In conformity with this prmciple of 
the representation of the child in the faith 
of the parent, and as evidence that the 
practice of the Chm^ch was to continue 
michanged, we mention the following 
fact : 

In every instance of the baptism of 
adultSj recorded in tJie N'ew Testament^ 



50 INFANT BAPTISM. 



where it is certain that there were chil- 
dren^ the children were hajytized on the 
faith of and with the parents. 

We have previously shown that the law 
and uniform practice under the old dis- 
pensation were the admittance and cir- 
cumcision of the children when the par- 
ent was admitted and circumcised. And 
the practice of the apostles, as announced 
in the above proposition, is conclusive 
evidence that this law and practice were 
perpetuated under the new dispensation. 

It then becomes necessary to show that 
there were children in the cases of house- 
hold baptisms mentioned in the ]N^ew Tes- 
tament. 

This argument alone seems conclusive 
on this point : 

Two Greek words are used in the I^ew 
Testament which are translated house- 
hold^ and have similar, but not the same 



INFANT BAPTISM. 51 



meaning. These words are oihia and 
oilcos. 

Both these words are frequently trans- 
lated a house^ meanmg a dwelling. When 
thus translated they are synonymous in 
use. But both are also frequently trans- 
lated house or liouseJiold^ meaning occu- 
pants. When thus translated they are 
not synonymous. Oihia is used when a 
household of adults is meant^ and oilcos 
when it is a household including children 
or infants. An examination of a few 
scriptures will manifest the correctness of 
this statement. In the following oihia 
is used : 

Mat. X. 24-25: ^^The disciple is not 
above his master, nor the servant above 
his lord.'' 

^^It is enough for the disciple that he 
be as his master, and the servant as his 
lord. If thsy have called the master of 
the house Beelzebub, how much more 



52 INFANT BAPTISM. 



shall they call them of his household P^ 

Mat. X. 35-36 : ' 'For I am come to set 
a man at yariance agamst his father, and 
the daughter against her mother, and the 
daughter-in-law against her mother-in- 
law.'^ 

^^And a man's foes shall he they of his 
own household.^ ^ 

Phil. iv. 22: ^^AU the saints salute 
you, chiefly they that are of Cesar's 
household.^ ^ 

John. iv. 53: ^'So the father knew 
that it was at the same hour, in the which 
Jesus said unto him. Thy son liveth : and 
himself believed, and his whole hotcse.'^^^ 

I. Cor. xvi. 15 : '^I beseech you breth- 
ren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, 
that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and 
that they have addicted themselves to the 
ministry of the saints.)" 

Let the reader examine the above quo- 
tations, and he will see that in each the 



INFANT BAPTISM. 53 



liouseliold is one of adults, as in each the 
occupants are represented as doing acts of 
which infants are not capable. 

In the following passages oikos is used : 

Luke xii. 42: ^'And the Lord said, 
Who then is that faithful and wise stew- 
ard, whom Ms lord shall make ruler oyer 
his liouseliold^ to give tliem their portion 
of meat in due season?'' 

I. Tim. iii. 4 : One that ruleth well his 
ow^i liouse^ havmg his children in subjec- 
tion with all gravity.'' 

I. Tim. iii. 12: ^^Let the deacons be 
the husbands of one wife, ruling their 
children and their own houses well." 

If the reader will examme these pass- 
ages and the contexts he will readily see 
that children, mfants, are included m the 
households mentioned, 

^^I will, therefore, that the young 
women marry, bear children, guide the 
house^'^^ (oikodespotem,) desjpotize the 



54 INFANT BAPTISM. 



family^ — rule the children according to 
their own wills , — a guiding or ruling 
which can refer to no class in a family but 
children^ infants^ who are to be despotized^ 
or ruled, according to the will of the 
parent. 

Both oiTcia and oilcos are in other places 
translated household^ but usually under 
such circumstances that it cannot be deter- 
mined certainly whether or not the house- 
hold was composed of adults exclusively 
or partly of children. The idea is that 
where a household is mentioned in such a 
way as to show that adults only consti- 
tute it, then oiTcia is used. "When it is a 
household including children, mfants, then 
oiTcos is used. This difference in the use 
of the two words appears clear from the 
above scriptures, and is uniform. 

I here quote a paragraph from Calmet's 
Dictionary of the Bible, article, ^^House- 
hold:'' 



i:ntant baptism. 55 



^^It should be observed, that in the 
New Testament there are two Greek 
words which our translators have ren- 
dered both house and liousehold. In their 
time usage did not separate them. The 
first (oiJcos) signifies the immediate fam- 
ily of the householder ; the other (oiJcia) 
includes his servants also ; and they are 
not interchanged, in respect to persons in 
the original • Hence we never read of 
oiJcia as being baptized, but of oiJcos only ; 
the children followed their parents in this 
rite ; but not the servants their proprietor, 
master or mistress.'' 

JSTow in the case of the household bap- 
tisms in the ^NTew Testament is it house- 
hold {oihia) as composed of servants, at- 
tendants, and courtiers — adults; or is it 
household (oiJcos) as including children^ 
little ones 9 The answer to this question 
will fully decide the question as to the 
baptism of infants by the apostles. If 



56 INFAOTT BAPTISM, 



oihia is the word used, then children^ in- 
fants^ were not meant; if oiJcos^ then 
cliildren^ infants^ were meant. 

Firsts then, let us investigate the case 
recorded in Acts xvi. 14-15 : ^^And a cer- 
tain woman name Lydia, a seller of pur- 
ple, of the city of Thyatira, which wor- 
shipped God, heard us ; whose heart the 
Lord had opened, that she attended unto 
the things spoken by Paul. And when 
she was baptized, and Tier liouseliold^ 
ipikos) ;'' not oiTcia^ meaning servants^ 
attendants^ 2idL:[At^\ but oiJcoSj children^ 
little ones; ^^she besought us, saying, If 
ye have judged me to be faithful to the 
Lord come into my house and abide there. 
And she constrained us." 

If any want a clear, indisputable case 
of the baptism of children, little ones^ on 
the faith of the parent, here it is. 

li^ext, take the case of the Phillippian 
jailor, recorded in Acts xvi. 30: ^^Sirs, 



INFANT BAPTISM. 57 



what must I doto be saved?' ' Yerse 33 : 
'^And he took them the same hom^ of the 
night and washed theii^ stripes and was 
baptized, he and all his^^ — all his Jiouse^ 
(oiJcos.) Verse 34, ^^And when he had 
brought them into his house ^ he set meat 
before them, and rejoiced believing in God 
with all his house — jpanoiTci^jpas^ all, and 
oiJcos^ household, as composed in part at 
least of little ones. 

Also, I. Cor. i. 16: ^^And I baptized 
also the household (oiJcon) of Stephanas.'' 
And I. Cor. xvi. 15: ^^Ye know the 
household (oiJcian) of Stephanas, that 
they have addicted themselves to the mm- 
istry of the saints." Here the apostle, in 
mentioning the household of Stephanas, 
in one case uses oiJcos^ and in the other 
oiJcia. ISTow why this difference in the 
using of these words? "Why not use the 
same word in both cases? The reason 
will appear at once when the two cases 



58 II>nFANT BAPTISM. 



are considered. In the latter case he is 
speaking of the houseliold^ or part of the 
liouseliold^ capable of ^^ministering to the 
saints/' adults; therefore in this case he 
uses for Jiouseliold^ oiTcia^ as composed of 
servants 5 attendants, adults. In the first 
case he is speaking of the household^ who 
were baptized on the faith of the parent, 
as in the case of Lydia and the jailer, 
and therefore he uses the same word as 
used in those cases — oiJcos^ household^ 
children, little ones: such as were bap- 
tized on the faith of the parent, not capa- 
ble, by reason of tender years, of ^^min- 
istering to the saints,'' and hence not 
included in the household oiTcia. 

Thus it appears as plain as undeniable 
facts and good reasons can make it, that 
in the households whose baptism is re- 
corded in the ISTew Testament, there were 
children^ little ones^ too young to exercise 
personal faith or to mmister to saints, or 



IIsrFAKT BAPTISM. 59 



SO young at least that they were baptized 
on the faith of their parents. 

Let us consider these household bap- 
tisms further. Agam note the text: — 
^^And a certain woman named Lydia, a 
seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, 
which worshipped God, heard us : whose 
heart the Lord opened, that she attended 
unto the things spoken by Paul. And 
when she was baptized and her household, 
&c.'' 1st. "Who heard the apostle? 
Lydia. 2nd. Whose heart was opened? 
Lydia's. 3d. Who a^^e/i(^e(^ to the things 
spoken? Lydia. ]N"ot one word is said 
about any other member of her house- 
hold hearing^ having the heart opened, or 
attending to the things spoken. If any 
other member of the household was con- 
verted it is not mentioned in the record. 
4th. Who were baptized? Lydia and her 
Tioiiseliold. ]^ow if the baptism of the 
household is a subject worthy of remark 



60 INFAISTT BAPTISM. 



in the record, is it not strange that 
the conversion of the liousehold^ on the 
supposition, that they were adults and con- 
verted previous to their baptism, is not 
also worthy of remark? The sacred his- 
torian is exceedingly particular to men- 
tion the conversion and baptism of Lydia 
and the baptism of the household; but 
not one word about the conversion of the 
household. The conclusion is inevitable 
that Lydia was the only one converted in 
the case, and on her faith the household 
was baptized. Here is a clear case of 
household baptism on the faith of the 
parent, and proves that the law of repre- 
sentation of previous dispensations of the 
Church was not cancelled, and that the 
practice, as it had always previously ex- 
isted, of requiring adult converts to bring 
their children with them into the Church, 
was to be continued. 

N^ote again also the text in the case of 



INFANT BAPTISM. 61 



the Philippian jailor : ^^Sirs, what must I 
do to be saved? And he answered : Be- 
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou 
shalt be saved, and thy house.'' ^^And 
he took them, the same hour of the night, 
and washed their stripes ; and was bap- 
tized, he and all Jiis.^^ The "all Ms^^^ 
whether children or not, were certainly- 
baptized. Did they also exercise faith? 
We propose to prove that they did not ; 
as follows: In the expression, ^^BeHeve 
on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt 
be saved and thy house,'' if both the 
Jailer and the persons included in th^ 
phrase "thy Tiouse^^ were required to ex- 
ercise faith, then the verb ^^ believe" is 
plural. If only the jailer was required to 
exercise faith, the verb is smgular. The 
question is determined then conclusively 
^ by determining the number, in grammar, 
of this verb. ]N^ow can it be determined 
whether or not this verb is singular or 



62 INFANT BAPTISM. 



plural? We say it can without any doubt 
^ whatever ; but not in the English, because 
in our language the imperative form of 
the verb is the same for both smgular 
and plural. This, then, is one of those 
cases where the original comes to our as- 
sistance and settles a dispute, because in 
the Greek language the verb has different 
forms for the singular and plural impera- 
tive. In the case under consideration the 
verb is pisteuson, which is the aorist im- 
perative singular. And thus it is dem- 
onstrated that the jailer alone was required 
to exercise faith, and yet on that individ- 
ual faith the persons included in the 
expression "all his^^ were baptized. 

ISTo man who has any claims to scholar- 
ship can deny what is here stated, and 
no Mnd or quantity of equivocation can 
escape the force of the fact as it exists in 
this case. The members of the jailer^ s 
^^house'' were baptized on his faith^ not 



INFANT BAPTISM. ' 63 



their own. There is no denying this. 
The scholar, so called, who will examine 
the Greek text and deny this proposition 
would deny Euclid's demonstration of a 
mathematical theorem. 

^^The old Syriac version of the ISTew 
Testament, the date of which is assigned, 
by Walton and others, to {he first century 
of the Christian era, substitutes the word 
cliildren for oikos^ ^ ^household'' and ^^all 
his," in the passages already referred to; 
and so, in that very early version, the read- 
ing is, ^^Lydia and her c7^^7^r67^," the jail- 
er ^ ^and his children ^'^^^ &c. This is at once 
a correct translation of the original, and a 
valuable testimony, as to the understand- 
ing of these passages in the very region 
where the apostles labored; and being 
given while some of them were yet alive, 
it ought to be conclusive on this subject.'' 
—Peters, p. 170. 

The editor of Calmet's Dictionary gives 



64 IKEAI^T BAPTISM, 



no less ^2in fifty examples in proof of the 
fact, that oiJcoSj rendered household^ when 
used in application to persons, denotes a 
family of children inclnding children of 
all ages, and assures us, that as many as 
three hundred instances have been exam- 
ined, and have proved perfectly satisfac- 
tory. — See Cal. p. 155. The conclusions 
are: 

First, That the apostles, who frequent- 
ly baptized the collection of persons called 
an oiTcos^ but never speak of baptizing an 
oihia^ must have baptized infant children. 

Second, That households^ oiTcoi^ as in- 
cluding children^ little oneSy ought to be 
baptized on the faith of parents. And 
Christian parents do greatly rebel against 
God's pohcy who neglect to thus seal 
their children in a covenant relation with 
the Lord. 

I have been requested to define the re- 
lation of baptized children to the Church. 



IKFANT BAPTISM. 65 



I begin by quoting Mat. xix. 14 : ^^ Jesus 
said, suffer little children, and forbid them 
not, to come unto me ; for of such is the 
kingdom of heaven.'' 

The terms ^^dngdom of heaven'' and 
^^of such" need explanation: 

1. ^'The kingdom of heaven" and ^^the 
kingdom of God" are synonymous, and 
are the general name under which the 
'Ne^Y Testament economy was &st her- 
alded by John the Baptist and delineated 
by Christ. Christian societies arose after 
Pentecost : and not till then was the term 
'^Church" used. The word '^congrega- 
tion" in the Old Testament means the 
same as the wordj'' Church," m the ]S^ew; 
hence Stephen speaks of the '"Church," 
or congregation, ''in the wilderness." 
The names "kingdom of heaven" and 
"Chm^ch" are both given to the Old Tes- 
tament economy and are also both given 
to the 'New Testament economy • but, as 



66 II^TPANT BAPTISM. 



happily expressed by Dr. Morison, they 
are not co-extensiye m signification and 
use: ^^They differ in this respect, that 
the Tcingdom of heaven^ like all other 
Kii^^aDOMSj includes the children of the 
subjects, while the Church is the society 
of the subjects themselves.'^ Baptism, 
therefore, recognizes the infant as be- 
longing to the ^^Mngdom of God,'' or 
^^of heaven," denoting the general com- 
munity of God's people as existing on 
earth. Strictly speaking it does not in- 
troduce the mf ant into the Church, unless 
the Avord Church be used in a general 
sense. It recognizes a relation to or con- 
nection with the ^ ^kingdom," and to be 
tramed up for Church connection proper. 
2. ^'Of such" does not mean ^^such- 
hke," which would hmit it to child-hke 
adults. To thus limit it is a cruel eva- 
sion, to say the least. Considered in con- 
nection with our Lord's assiuance, ^^Ex- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 67 



cept ye be converted and become as little 
children ye cannot enter the kmgdom of 
God,'' it plainly teaches that the ^ ^king- 
dom of heaven'' is composed of infants 
and of infant-like adults. 

3. The expression ^^ Theirs is the king- 
dom of heaven," which is repeated in the 
sermon on the mount, is identical, the pro- 
noun excepted, m the original Greek with 
the expression ^^of such is the kingdom 
of heaven." There ^^the poor in spirit," 
^^the persecuted" and others not only 
composed ' ^the kingdom ;" but its honors 
and privileges belonged to them. And 
here infants and infant-like spirits com- 
pose the ^'kingdom," and its privileges, 
so far as applicable, belong equally to 
mfants. 

4. I close this part of my argument 
with the language of Baxter, who so 
sweetly wrote of, and doubtless now en- 
joys, ^^The Saint's Everlasting Rest." 



68 DSTFANT BAPTISM. 



How can infants be ^received in 
Christ's name/ if they belong not to 
him and his Church? l!^ay, doth Christ 
account it a receiving of himself, and 
shall I then refuse to receive them or ac- 
knowledge them the subjects of his visi- 
ble kingdom? For my part, seeing Christ 
hath given me so full a discovery of his 
will on this point, I will boldly adventure 
to follow his rule, and would rather 
answer him upon his own encouragement 
for admitting a hundred infants into his 
Church, than answer for keepmg one out. ' ' 

As a suitable conclusion for this chap- 
ter, I have chosen the following by Dr. 
Hodge: ^^The apostles were not settled 
pastors in the midst of an established 
Christian community, but itinerant mis- 
sionaries to an unbelieving world, sent, 
not to baptize, but to preach the Grospel. 
(1 Cor. i. 17.) Hence we have in Acts 
and Epistles the record of only ten separ- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 69 



ate instances of baptism. In two of 
these, — viz. : of the Eunuch, and of Paul 
(Acts viii. 38; ix. 18,)— there Avere no 
families to be baptized. In the cases of 
the three thousand on the Day of Pente- 
cost, the people of Samaria, and the dis- 
ciples of John at Ephesus, crowds were 
baptized on the very spot on which they 
professed to believe. Of the remaining 
five instances, in the four cases in which 
the family is mentioned at all, it is ex- 
pressly said they were baptized, — viz., the 
households of Lydia of Thyatira, of the 
jailor of Philippi, of Crispus, and of 
Stephanas. (Acts xvi. 15, 32, 33 ; xviii. 
8; 1 Cor. i. 16.) In the remainmg in- 
stance of Cornelius, the record implies 
that the family was also baptized. Thus 
the apostles, m every case, without a single 
recorded exception, baptized believers 
on the spot; and whenever they had 



70 IIS^-FANT BAPTISM. 



families, they also baptized their house- 
holds as sucli.^^ 

^^FOR THEY ARE THE SeED OF THE 

^Blessed op the Lord, an^d their off- 
spring WITH them.'' Isv. Ixv, 23. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 7X 



CHAPTEE III. 

TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 

In support of my leading proposition, 
it is now only necessary to add — That the 
uniform testimony of the early Christian 
fathers is that the children of parents, 
one or both of whom were baptized, were 
everywhere and always baptized. 

1st. Justin Martyr, who wrote about 
forty years after the death of St. John, 
says : ^^We are circumcised by baptism, 
with Christ's circumcision,'' Here he 
makes baptism answerable to circum- 
cision, the very point which we have been 
arguing, as entitling infants to baptism, 
on the same principles which entitled 

ihexn to circumcision. 



72 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Again he says: ^^Many men, and 
many women, among us, sixty and sev- 
enty years old, who were discipled to 
Christ from their childhood^ do continue 
uncorrupt.'' Justin here uses the iden- 
tical Greek word used by our Savior in 
the commission: ^^Go ye, therefore, 
and (teach) discijyie all nations, bap- 
tizing them and teaching them.''* To 
disciple^ according to anti-pedo-baptist 
and all other authority, it is necessary to 
baptize. Here, then, according to Jus- 
tin Martyr, were parties who were sev- 
enty years old when he wrote, who were 
discipled in their childhood, and of coin-se, 
baptized in their childhood. This is in- 
fant church membership and baptism sev- 
enty years previous to the time when Jus- 
tin Yfrote, which carries the date back to 
thirty-six years after the ascension of 
Christ and in the midst of apostolic times : 
for these Septuagenarians must have been 



IISrFA:tTT BAPTISM. 73 



young men and maidens, while holy 
apostles yet walked the earth, 

2d. Irenseus was a disciple of Poly- 
carp, who was an associate of St. John, 
and was chosen by him as the ^^angeP' 
of the church of Smyrna. Irenaeus says 
of Poly carp, that he remembers and could 
describe the place where he sat, his fea- 
tures, his manner of life and his discourses 
to the people concerning the conversa- 
tions he had had with St. John and others 
who had seen Christ. This Irenaeus, 
speaking of Christ, says : ^^Por he came 
to save all persons by himself; all, I 
mean, who by him are regenerated (bap- 
tized) unto God — infants^ and little ones^ 
and boys, and youths, and older men.'' 
This language, in connection with the 
circumstances of the author, speaks for 
itself and needs no comment. It is near- 
ly tantamount to testimony by the apostles 
themselves. 



74 raTANT BAPTISM. 



3d. Origeiij a famous Greek father of 
the third century ^ and the most learned 
man of his day^ whose family had long 
been Christian, and who was born about 
80 years after the apostohc age, says : 
^^ For this cause it was that the Church 
received an order from the apostles to give 
hajptism to infants.^ ' And, ' ^According 
to the usage of the Church, baptism is 
given to infants.'' 

The number of Origen's works is put 
at six thousand, which of course includes 
his brief essays, tracts and letters. This 
fact shows his extensive learning and re- 
search. His baptism in his infancy, 
which took place only about twenty-five 
years after the death of the apostle John 
brings the history of that practice to with- 
in the shadow of the apostolic age. 

4:th. In A. D. 252, in answer to the 
question as to whether baptism, hke cir- 
cumcision, should be restricted to the 



INPANT 19APTISM. 75 



eighth day, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 
backed by a council of sixty-six bishops, 
stated that there was no need of such de- 
lay, for ^^the mercy and grace of God 
are to be denied to none that is born.'' 

5th. Pelagius, a British Monk, who 
lived a little more than three hundred 
years after the apostles, a very learned 
man, though a heretic on the doctrine of 
human depravity, says : "^^I never heard of 
any, not even the most impious heretic, 
who denied baptism to infants." 

5th. Augustin was cotemporaneous 
with Pelagius and was the learned oppo- 
nent of his heresy. He was one of the 
most eminent men for learning the Church 
ever produced and, accordmg to his own 
shoAving, had read all the literature of the 
Church up to his times . He says : ' ' Since 
they (Pelagians) grant that infants must 
be baptized, as not bemg able to resist 
the authority of the whole Church, which 



76 INFANT BAPTISM. 



was doubtless delivered hy our Lord and 
Ms apostles. ^^ 

6th. St. Austin in the fourth century, 
says: ^^If any one do ask for divine 
authority in this matter (of baptism of in- 
fants) ; though that which the whole 
Church practices 5 and which has not heen 
instituted hy councils^ hut was ever in use^ 
is very reasonably believed to be no other 
than a thing delivered by authority of the 
apostles.'' 

Our Baptist brethren say that the bap- 
tism of infants ^^was instituted by comi- 
cils.'' St. Austin, living more than fif- 
teen hundred years nearer the apostolic 
day than they, says emphatically that it 
^Svas not instituted by councils, but was 



ever in use." 



7th. Optatus, Bishop of Milevi, A. D. 
360, speaks of baptism in the similitude 
of "^ garment" and proceeds: ^^Oh! 
what a garment is this, that is always one 



rSTFANT BAPTISM. 77 



and never renewed, that decently fits all 
ages and all shapes ! It is neither too big 
Tor infants nor too little for men.'' 

Likewise, it may be remarked, that in 
these testimonies the Greek and Latm 
fathers have a single voice, and cover a 
vast breadth of the Christian vforld. 
Origen testifies for the Grreeks, Cyprian 
for the whole of ISTorthern Africa, and 
others for the wide regions of Asia. 
Says ISTeander, the elaborate ecclesiasti- 
cal historian: ^^In the Persian chm^ch, 
in the conrse of the third century, infant 
baptism was so generally recognized, 
that the sect-founder Mani thought he 
could draw an argument from it in favor 
of one of his peculiar tenets.'' 

Observe that these fathers wrote before 
the Roman Catholic Church was in exist- 
ence, and, therefore, they do very greatly 
^err, who say that the baptism of in- 
fants is "a rehc of Popery.' ' 



78 INFAISTT BAPTISM. 



In conclusion: 

Great ecclesiasticalj like great political 
changes 5 are attended mth strife. "New 
opinions and practices are not introduced 
without opposition. If infant member- 
ship and baptism are an mnoyation, when 
was it introduced, and where was the 
opposition to its introduction among the 
early fathers? Such a great change m 
the doctrine and practice of the Church 
could scarcely be introduced quietly. It 
would meet with strong and protracted 
opposition. But who can show where 
and when this opposition took place? 

The reliable writers of the first centu- 
ries have transmitted minute accounts of 
the various innoyations and heresies which 
were from time to time mtroduced. Ter- 
tulian gives a list of the innovations of his 
time 5 the second century, and Irenaeus, 
of the same century, wi^ote a volume of 
500 pages, which is yet in existence, 



INFANT BAPTISM. 79 



against heresies. Hipolytus, of the third 
century, wrote ten books against "All 
Heresies ^^^ m which innovations are care- 
fully catalogued. But strange to say, in 
these first centuries the silence of the 
grave is mamtained as to mf ant baptism 
as an innovation or as to any opposition 
to it as a heresy. On the contrary, the 
testimony of the writers of these centuries 
is unbroken and unequivocal as to its ex- 
istence and the apostohc authority for it. 
^^In the first one thousand years of the 
church's history there is not a voice raised 
against it." Miller. 

We may well conclude this part of our 
subject by the following somewhat lengthy 
quotation from Dr. "Wall, perhaps the 
most assiduous investigator who has ever 
imdertaken this subject : 

^^The sense of all modern learned men 
that do read these ancient books, except 
those few specified, is, that these books 



80 INFANT BAPTISM. 



do give clear proof that infant baptism 
was customary in the times of those au- 
thors ^ and from the aj^ostles^ times. °^^ 
^ ^Lastly, as these evidences are for the 
first four hundred years^ in which there 
appears only one man (Turtulhan) that 
advised the delay of infant baptism in 
some cases J and one ( Gregory j) that did 
perhaps practice such delay in the case of 
his children J but no society of men so 
thinking or so practicing, nor no one man 
saying it was unlawful to baptize mf ants ; 
so 5 in the next seven hundred years^ there 
is not so much as one man to he found 
that either spoke for or practiced any such 
delay; but all to the contrary. And 
when about the year 1130 one sect arose 
among the Albigenses declaring against 
the baptizing of infants ^ as being incapa- 
ble of salvation, the main body of that 
people rejected that their opinion; and 
they of them who held that opinion quick- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 81 



]j dwindled away and disappeared, there 
being no more heard of holding that tenet 
till the rise of the German anti-pedo-Bap- 
tistsml522.'' 

Thus according to histoiy the first op- 
position to the practice of the baptism of 
infants was in the sixteenth century. 

We may therefore safely conclude that 
our general proposition is demonstrated to 
be the doctrine of scripture and the prac- 
tice of the Church m all ages — under both 
dispensations- 

^^Pro Hoc Et Ecclesia Ab Aposto- 
Lis Traditionem Suscepit Etiam Par- 
vuLis Baptismum Dare." Origen. 



82 INFANT BAPTISM. 



CHAPTEK IV. 

SOME OTHER ARGUMENTS. 

1st. In Chapter first the fact was men- 
tioned that, if the principles there set forth 
be not correct, Christ must have lived and 
died without being a member of his own 
Church. Who can show where and when 
he became a member unless in his infancy, 
as had always been the practice of the 
Church? Certainly none will claim that 
he became a member at the time of his 
baptism, for that would present him as 
setting the example to his followers of 
living out of the Church until we are 
thirty years old. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 83 



2d. Many have the mistaken idea that 
we claim that baptism admits the children 
of believers to the Church. They are not 
members of the Church because they are 
baptized ; but they are baptized because 
they are members of the Church in a 
sense elsewhere explained. By reason 
of their being the children of believing 
parents they are memhers of the Church 
and baptism is given to them, as was 
circumcision, as a seal of the fact of 
their membership. It does not admit 
them to membership, but seals the fact 
that they are members by virtue of their 
representation in the faith of the parent. 
This is exactly the Bible view of the sub- 
ject, and we shall maintain it as such, 
whether it appears wise or simple to men. 

3d. Every human being born into this 
world is involved in original sin. Of the 
race it is written, ^^ There is no somidness 
in it ; but wounds and bruises and putri- 



84 INFANT BAPTISM. 



f ying sores . ' ' But the doctrine in Romans 
is that the plaster is as broad as the sore. 
Christ gave himself a ransom for all. 
Therefore every one born into this world 
is Christ's until by sin and unbelief he 
wilfully rejects him. If infants are not 
Christ's how can they be saved if they die 
in infancy? If they are his after death, 
are they not his before death? And if 
his are they not in some way in a gracious 
state? And if in a gracious state, are 
they not entitled to recognition as ^^ chil- 
dren of the kingdom," and to the ordi- 
nance which recognizes the relation? 

4th. As anti-pedo-Baptists insist on 
bringing their favorite Greek word hapUzp 
into the argument, we wish to give them 
the benefit of|[it in the following quota- 
tion, 1st Cormthians, chap. x. 1-6: 

^ ^Moreover, brethren, I would not that 
ye should be^ignorant, how that all our 



INFAI^T BAPTISM. 85 



fathers were under the cloud, and all 
passed through the sea. 

^^And were all baptized unto Moses in 
the cloud and m the sea ; 

^^And did all eat the same spiritual 
meat; 

^^And did so drink the same spiritual 
drink; (for they drank of that spiritual 
Rock that followed them ; and that Bock 
was Christ;) 

^^But with many of them Grod was not 
well pleased; for they were oyertlirown 
m the wilderness. 

"l^ow these things were our examples^ 
to the mtent we should not lust after evil 
things, as they also lusted.'' 

In this scripture the reader will note the 
following facts : 

1 . That the haptizing in this case, what- 
ever it was in other respects, in its main 
feature was the same action which is ex- 
pressed by that Greek word about which 



86 i:ntant baptism. 



so much is written, as that same word is 
here used. 

2. That all the Israelites— old, middle- 
aged, young, youthful and infantile — all 
who passed through the Eed Sea, ^ Vere 
hajptizedy 

3. That the administrator of this bap- 
tism was Grod himself. "What, God Sop- 
tize infants ! So says the apostle Paul to 
the Corinthians. 

4. That this baptizing, children, in- 
fants and all, was done as the apostle 
says, in verse sixth, ^'for our examples. ^^ 

As we are often asked to produce a 
Bible case of the baptism of infants, we 
produce this as one which cannot be gain- 
sayed. And let us make an inquiry into 
this case and see, if we can, how many 
children there were. 

About three months from this hajptizing 
the children of Israel were numbered. 
[See book of Numbers, chap. 1, verse 



INFANT BAPTISM. 87 



46.] In eleven of the twelve tribes there 
were men from twenty years old and up- 
wards, able to bear arms, six hundred and 
tJii^ee thousand five hundred and fifty. 
Double this number for the supposition 
that the number of women was equal to 
that of the men, and then add one-eleventh 
for the other tribe, and you have for the 
whole number of persons over twenty 
years old and younger than the age for 
exemption from bearing arms, one mil- 
lion three hundred and sixteen thousand 
eight hundred and thirty-six, (1,316,- 
836) able-bodied adults. ^NTow estimate 
how many children are usually with that 
many able-bodied adults — especially con- 
sidering the usual fecundity of the Jews 
— and you will have an idea of the num- 
ber of children baptized in this case. That 
there were the usual number of children 
from one month old and upwards, at 
least, is proven from IS^umbers iii. 15, 



88 i:srFA]^T baptism. 



where a portion of them were required to 
be numbered, l^othing is said about 
children younger than one month, but 
where there are those above that age it 
is usual, to say the least, to have a due 
proportion younger than that, and there 
is no reason for supposing that they were 
not here. 

To say the least of it, this is a case of 
the haptism^ yes, ''haptism^^'' of a very 
large number of infants^ and God, the 
administrator in the case. If any deny 
this, it is a question of veracity between 
them and the apostle Paul which we will 
allow the parties concerned to settle with- 
out our interference. And if the baptism 
of infants is foolish and a desecration, Grod 
himself is the foolish and guilty party in 
this case, the apostle Paul being the his- 
torian. 

Here is a case of the baptism of infants 
on a large scale. Paul says they "were 



INFAKT BAPTISM. 89 



all haptized^'^ (baptize), and that it was 
'^for our examples.'' If any say that this 
is not an instance of ordinary baptism, 
then they must repudiate their favorite 
Greek word, for this is just what comes of 
giving them the full benefit of its signifi- 
cation. It is a dispute between them and 
the Greek word. 

"We must ask the reader's pardon for 
what follows, as we do not wish to carica- 
ture : but we cannot resist the temptation 
to give just here an illustration of the ab- 
surdity to which the immersionists' defi- 
nition of the word hajptizo leads. Thus: 

Dr. Carson: ^^My position is, that it 
(haptizoj always signifies to dip." And 
Alexander Campbell thus defines vahd 
dipping: ^^We must dip, only once, and 
the motion must be backwards." 

]S^ow substitute these definitions for the 
word in the verse above quoted from the 
apostle Paul, viz. : ^'And were all hap- 



90 INFAJSTT BAPTISM. 



tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
sea,'' and you have the following rather 
awkward sentence for so learned and 
rhetorical a man as Paul, viz.: ^^And 
were all,'' — men, women, youths, chil- 
dren and infants — ^ ^dipped, once, back- 
wards, unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
sea." And this awkward sentence, forced 
upon us when we accept the definitions to 
which immersionists limit us, the penalty 
being excommunication from all church 
privileges and blessings, becomes the more 
remarkable when considered in the fight 
of the following facts : 

1. Moses tells us that this baptizing (or 
^^ dipping") was done on dry ground.-^ 
Ex. xiv. 29: ^^But the children of Israel 
walked upon dry land in the midst of the 
sea." 

2. David, celebrating the passage of 
the Eed Sea, in sacred song, say^ : 



INFANT BAPTISM. 91 



Psalms Ixxyii. 16: ^^The clouds poured 
out water." 

Then the case stands thus : 

Three mspired pensmen testify : The 
fact : Paul : ' ^They were all baptized unto 
Moses in the cloud.'' Where? Moses: 
^^On dry land.'' How? David: ^^The 
clouds jpoured out water." 

Immersionists testify : ^^They were all 
dipped, once, backwards, unto Moses in 
the cloud." 

We leave the reader to choose for him- 
self between these authorities. 

^^QuoD Uniyeesa Tenet Ecclesia :" 
Augustine, A. D. 388*. 



92 INFANT BAPTISM. 



CHAPTEEV. 

SOME OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

1. It is said that the Bible makes per- 
sonal faith necessary to baptism ^ and the 
following quotation is relied on : ' ^He that 
belieyeth and is baptized shall be saved.'' 
It is argued that the fact that belief is 
placed before baptism in this text^ proves 
that it must precede it in every case. Let 
the reader accompany us in a brief analy- 
sis of this passage. We vn.ll remark first 
that it is quite evident that water baptism 
is not meant in this case at all ; but for 
the sake of argument, we will take it that 
way. 

Three subjects are here mentioned, 
viz.': Faith, baptism and salvation. 



INFAI^T BAPTISM. 93 



We will designate them by numbers. 
Faith is 'No. 1, baptism No. 2, and sal- 
vation No. 3. Substituting these in the 
quotation it stands : ' 'He that hath IN^o. 1 
and jSTo. 2 shall have IsTo. 3.'' ]!^ow, the 
position of our opponents is, that the fact 
that ISTo. 1 precedes I^o. 2 in the quota- 
tion, is positive proof that ISTo. 1 is essen- 
tial to ISTo. 2. ISTow let us investigate. 
If the fact that ]!^o. 1 precedes ]N^o. 
2 is proof that it is essential to ISTo. 2, then 
the fact that ^N^o. 1 and JSTo. 2 both 
precede N^o. 3 is proof that N^o. 1 and 
JN'o. 2 are both essential to ]!^o. 3. This 
is clear. I^ow what is the result? Faith 
precedes baptism in the passage, there- 
fore faith is essential to baptism; both 
faith and baptism precede salvation, 
therefore both faith and baptism are in- 
dispensable to salvation. Or thus, bap- 
tism cannot be without faith, as faith pre- 
cedes baptism ; therefore salvation cannot 



94 ENTFAISTT BAPTISM. 



be without both faith and baptism, as 
both precede it in the passage. Thus it 
is seen that the passage proves too much. 
When an argument proves too much it 
proves nothing. 

The correct view of this subject is what 
the Bible has so plainly presented, viz : 
Abraham was circumcised after he be- 
lieved : his children were circumcised be- 
fore they believed; and such was the 
uniform practice of the Church anciently. 
Likewise, when adults are baptized, it 
must be after they believe ; when infants 
are baptized, it is before they Helieve. 

2. It is said that faith is required in the • 
case of baptism, and as children are in- 
capable of exercising faith, therefore they 
must not be baptized. Let us apply this 
argument to a few passages of scripture, 
and see how much it proves more than 
enough. First: ^^If any will not work, 
neither shall he eat.'' Children canno 



INFAISTT BAPTISM. 95 



work, therefore they must not eat. Sec- 
ond : ' ^Except ye repent, ye shall all like- 
wise perish.'' Children cannot repent, 
therefore they must all perish. Third: 
'^He that believeth not shall be damned." 
Children cannot believe, therefore they 
must be damned. And so on. As in the 
previous case the argument proves far too 
much. 

3. Again, it is argued that it is foolish 
to baptize unconsx3ious infants. The ar- 
gument is that it is folly to administer a 
sacrament to unconscious infants. It was 
therefore foohsh to administer circumcis- 
ion to infants. But none deny that this 
was done by God's direct command. Then 
God appointed and required what was 
foolish. This argument proves too much 
also. 

Whence do anti-paedo-Baptists get 
authority for holding that children are m- 
capable of spiritual blessings in an eccle- 



96 lOTFANT BAPTISM. 



siastical ordinance? Certainly not from 
the Bible ; for that precions book tells us 
that John was filled with the Holy Ghost 
from his mother's womb, Luke i. 15: 
and that Christ himself was circumcised 
when eight days old, Luke ii.-21. 

4. It is objected to the baptism of in- 
fants that it takes away the child's free- 
dom of choice. When he grows up he 
may choose another mode of baptism. For 
the same reason it could be argued that 
we ought not to train children up to any 
system of views, lest they might have be- 
lieved differently if they had received no 
early instructions. For instance : 1. 
They must not be trained in the Protes- 
tant faith for fear of taking away their 
freedom of choice. 2. They must not be 
trained in the Sunday Schools and in the 
faith of any Church lest their freedom of 
choice be taken away. If let alone and 
unbiased by early instructions, they may, 



rN-FAlSTT BAPTISM. 97 



perhaps 5 when gro^vn up, choose another 
faith. 3. Any instruction given them in 
infancy is wrong, because it controls their 
opinions m future life, and thus takes 
away their freedom of choice. Thus, al- 
so, this argument proves by far too much. 

5. As mentioned in chapter 2, it is said 
that Christ gave no direct command to 
baptize infants. In addition to what is 
there said in answer to the objection, we 
will here say that Christ gave no com- 
mand to baptize any class as such — 
neither infant nor adult. He commanded 
the general duty of baptism, without 
specifying any class . And if it is ob j ected 
to the baptism of infants, that Christ gave 
no direct command to baptize them as a 
class, on the same ground it must be ob- 
jected to the baptism of adults, because 
Christ gave no direct command to baptize 
them as a class. 

I quote from John Guthrie, D.D., of 



98 IKPANT BAPTISM. 



Scotland : ^ ^The demand for a direct com- 
mand is the more to be resisted that the 
burden of proof rests on them, not on us : 
that it is for them to prove the exclusion 
of infants from the initiatory rite in the 
Christian church , rather than for us to 
prove that a privilege which had existed 
for two thousand years, ever since God 
had a distinct visible church in the world, 
was not now to cease and determine.'' 



INFANT BAPTISM. 99 



CHAPTEE YI. 

THE ARGUMENT CONDENSED. 

^^To iviY mind, the argument for infant 
baptism lies in a nutshell. It is this : 
The covenant and provisions of God's 
grace are m all ages the same. The 
social constitution and wants of man are 
always essentially the same. The visible 
church in its vital spiritual features is al- 
ways and everywhere the same. That the 
Church began to take shapcin the time of 
Abraham, and through that entire patri- 
archal and Mosaic perigd down to Christ 
— a period of 2,000 years — it was a recog- 
nized and invariable principle that the con- 
secrated community mcluded the children, 
and shared with them the badge, or initia- 
tory rite. This, and all its spuitual im- 



100 i:nfant baptism. 



plications, was a settled law in Jacob, and 
testimony in Israel. It was the state of 
things when Christ came. At that time, 
when proselytes were received, their fam- 
ihes were received along with them. This 
is beyond all dispute. The greatest rab- 
binical scholar, perhaps, which ever Eng- 
land produced — Dr. Lightfoot — says this 
is as clear as that the smi is shining in the 
heavens. Proselytes and children were 
both circumcised and baptized. Circum- 
cision was dropped in the 'New Testament 
age, as mapplicable to a world-wide dis- 
pensation, and baptism was retained in its 
place.'' Dr, Guthrie. 

"Wlien the Church passed from the old 
dispensation to the new, Christ made no 
change as to the relation, privileges and 
rights of children. The precepts and 
practice of the apostles, and their silence 
as to a change, show that there was no 
change. ^The uniform practice and unan- 



IISTFANT BAPTISM. 101 



imous testimony of the Church, unbroken 
and undisturbed through the long period 
of the first fifteen hundred years of mod- 
ern times, testify that the denying of 
baptism to mf ants by a yery small part of 
Christendom is a modern innovation. 

We here favor the reader with the ex- 
position of the 95th question and answer, 
of the Shorter Catechism of the "West- 
mmster Assembly, by the renowned Mat- 
thew Henry : 

1. Are Jews and Pagans to be baptized upon their be- 
lieving ? Yes : if thou believest with all thy heart, thou 
mayest, Acts viii. 37. Will their justifiable iDrofession 
warrant the administering of baptism to them? Yes: 
Simon Magus believed -also, and was baptized, Acts viii. 13. 

2. Are the children of believing parents to be baptized 
in their infancy ? Yes : for a seed shall serve him, it shall 
be accounted to the Lord for a generation, Ps. 30. Is it 
possible they may be in covenant with God ? Yes : for 
yoti have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, John xv. 
16. Is it probable they should be in covenant ? Yes: for 
when Israel was a child, then I loved him, Hos. xi. 1. Is 
it certain they were in covenant ? Yes : I will be a God 
to thee and to thy seed, Gen. xvii. 7. Is it therefore cer- 



102 DSnFAKT BAPTISM. 



tain they are in covenant ? Yes : for the blessing of Abra- 
ham comes upon the Gentiles, Gal. iii. 14. Does the seal 
of the covenant therefore belong to them ? Yes : every 
man-child among you shall be circumcised, Gen. xvii. 10. 

3. Are the children of Christians members of Christ's 
visible church ? Yes : for of such is the kingdom of God, 
Mark x. 14. Do the promises belong to them ? Yes : the 
promise is to you and to your children, Acts ii. 39. Does 
the promise of the Spirit belong to them ? Yes : I will 
pour my Spirit upon thy seed, Isa. xliv. 3. Are they 
capable of receiving it ? Yes : John was filled with the 
Holy Ghost from his mother's womb, Luke i. 15. Are 
they then to be baptized ? Yes : for who can forbid water 
to them which have received the Holy Ghost as well as 
we ? Acts X. 47. 

4. Are the children of believers federally holy ? Yes : 
else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, 
I Cor. vii. 14. Are they so in their parents' right ? Yes : 
if the root be holy, so are the branches, Kom. xi. 16. 
Are they disciples? Yes: for the yoke of circumcision 
was put upon the neck of the disciples. Acts xv. 1, 10* 
Are they to be received in Christ's name ? Yes : whoso- 
ever receiveth one such little child in my name, receiveth 
me, Matt, xviii. 5. Are they born unto God ? Yes: thou 
hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast 
borne unto me, Ezek. xvi. 20. Are they bound by relation 
to be his servants ? Yes : I am thy servant the son of thine 
handmaid, Ps. cxvi. 1 6. Ought they then to be presented 



INFANT BAPTISM. 103 



to him? Yes: the first-born of thy sons shalt thou give 
unto me, Exod, xxii. 29. 

5. Do children need to be cleansed from the pollutions of 
sin? Yes: for they are shapen in iniquity, Ps. li. 5. Is 
there provision made for their cleansing? Yes : for there 
is a fountain opened to the house of David, Zech. xiii. 1, 

6. Are the nations to be discipled by baptism? Yes: 
go ye and disciple all nation?, baptizing them, Matt, 
xxviii. 19. Are children a part of the nations? Yes: 
your little ones stand here this day, to enter into covenant 
with God, Deut. xxix. 11, 12. And has Christ excepted 
them? No: suffer little children to come unto me, and 
forbid them not, Matt. xix. 14. Were the families of 
believers baptized by the apostles? Yes: Lydia was 
baptized and her household, Acts xvi. 15. Did Christ 
himself receive the seal of the covenant in his infancy? 
Yes: when he was eight days old he was circumcised, 
Luke ii. 21. 

7. Is infant baptism useful for preserving the church? 
Yes: that our children may .not cease from fearing the 
Lord, Josh. xxii. 25. Was it a great mercy to you that 
you were baptized? Yes: for we are the children of the 
covenant. Acts iii. 25. 

8. Must we be careful to improve our baptism? Yes: 
be ye mindful always of his covenant, I. Chron. xvi. 15. 
Is it a good argument against sin? Yes: how shall we 
that are dead to sin live any longer therein? Rom. vi. 2, 
And for holiness? Yes: for we also should walk in new- 



104 INFANT BAPTISM. 



ness of life, Rom. vi. 4. Is it a great encouragement to 
faith? Yes: thoH art my God from my mother's belly, 
Ps. xxii. 10. Is it a good plea in prayer? Yes: save the 
son of thy handmaid, Ps. Ixxxvi. 16. Is it a strong in- 
ducement to brotherly love? Yes: for we all are bap- 
tized into one body, I. Cor. xii. 13. 

^^MeNj brethren, and fathers, hear 
ye my defense which i make now unto 
YOU.'' — Paul. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



